Sorry, kid, but we need to have a wee bit of a chat about this post.
You know, I just don't understand what all of the fuss is about regarding the mentioning of so-called Intelligent Design theories when discussions about Evolution arise in our nation's schools.Yeah, yeah. I know that Evolution is the one with all the cool fossils to see and that there is no proof when it comes to Intelligent Design. I also know that some scientists feel that without proof and without any means of testing a theory, a theory is considered bunk. However, not so long ago, the best minds in the world were convinced that the earth was flat, so I'm thinking we should be a little more inclusive in our discussions.{...}
Phoenix then goes on to claim that her teachers tried more to "indoctrinate" rather than "educate," and says her father set her straight on more than one occasion when an educator gave out faulty/less than complete information. Due to this, she has learned critical thinking, which is good. I'm not knocking that. Critical thinking is always good. But then there's this whopper of a statement at the end of her post that, quite literally, made my jaw drop:
{...}So, I say, let our children decide for themselves. Perhaps Intelligent Design can't be proven or disproven now. Perhaps Evolution is the real deal. But what does it hurt to expose our children to the entire debate? Can we not trust them to come to their own conclusions? If I had to sit through 4 weeks in a world history class listening to extended discourse on Islam in the 8th grade, including the 5 tenets of Islam, why can't today's students hear about the beliefs of some Christians as it relates to this issue? Learning about Islam didn't turn me into a Muslim. Being exposed to the idea of Intelligent Design isn't going to throw your child to the lions.What's the big deal? Can't we trust our kids to decide for themselves?{...}
Sweetheart. You really want to know what the big deal is? Ok, well,Was the 2nd Amendment the only thing you learned about when it came to the Constitution? Because, if it was, you should know we have this little thing called the Establishment Clause which, along with all the other subsequent case law that follows it, declares that no religion shall be taught in public schools. It's pretty simple stuff. This is why Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught in public schools---because, in a very small way, it's teaching religion.
To miss this point is to miss the big fat pink elephant that's plopped its fat ass down in your living room. That's what the "big deal" is. And there is a bit of a difference between teaching the Five Pillars of Islam in a historical context to being taught that, because some people don't believe in Darwinism and take offense at the notion they were descended from apes, there should be an entire section added to the science curriculum---a section that has nothing to do with science, but has everything to do with religion. Yet these people claim the teaching of ID is all about offering students "a choice." That's all well and good but one choice is based in science; the other is based in religion. And neither one can be proved.
Look, I don't see CAIR asking for an entire section on Islam to be taught in all World History classes, do you? The analogy Phoenix raises is faulty. When the tenets of Islam are being taught in a World History class it is because, to be sure, a good deal of the world's history was shaped by that religion, hence it's fair to make sure students know precisely why the Ottoman Empire was out there, raping and pillaging for Allah. It's the same when Christianity is taught in relation to the Crusades or the Holy Roman Empire, or how Hinduism is relevant to the rise of the British Empire in India. It's knowledge that is essential to the discussion. It's rote knowledge; it's knowledge that's matter of fact, taken for granted. I fail to see, however, where intelligent design is essential to the discussion of evolution---particularly when that discussion is taking place in a public school. It is an explanation of evolution that is, for the most part, based in religion, and as we've established, religion does not belong in public schools.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if anyone wants their kid to learn about creationism, they should send their kid to a parochial school. It's pretty simple stuff. Your kids will be taught the religion of your choice, without any messy and inconvenient facts to get in the way of things.
Posted by Kathy at September 27, 2005 11:15 PM | TrackBackBravo.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Sloppy, Kathy. Needlessly sloppy. Don't make me screed you. Just admit you haven't actually read the Intelligent Design primary sources, and are going on hearsay, and we'll leave it there. You beat up this strawman real good. It didn't prepare you for actual debate on the topic you just attempted to lecture on.
Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2005 12:28 AMI'll freely admit I haven't read the ID primary sources. I don't think I need to read it, either. I'm, honestly, not all that interested in the theory itself, no more so than I am interested in revisiting Darwin's Origin of Species. All I need to know is that Intelligent Design preaches that a higher being helped out with the evolution process. I mean, that is the basis of the theory, is it not? You don't have to get too much more involved than that to dictate that it shouldn't be taught in public schools.
If people want to teach their kids about theories of evolution based in religion, they are more than welcome to do so. I have no issues with that. Just don't do it in a public school. Send the kids to a parochial school or homeschool them.
Posted by: Kathy at September 28, 2005 12:39 AMAll I need to know is that Intelligent Design preaches that a higher being helped out with the evolution process. I mean, that is the basis of the theory, is it not? You don't have to get too much more involved than that to dictate that it shouldn't be taught in public schools.
Well that's terrific, if you think kids in public schools ought to be sheltered from dangerous thoughts. Because if something isn't the result of random natural processes, teaching someone that it is isn't a very good education, right?
Seriously, the underlying theory is pretty simple. If you come across a bridge made of concrete and steel, you yourself can detect that some external intelligence designed it, rather than assuming it's a natural geologic formation.
The ID folks take that notion into physics, and chemistry, and genetics, and astronomy, etc. etc. They create repeatable experiments following the protocols of the field they're working within.
Ten thousand years from now, will scientists dismiss claims that Mount Rushmore could have been carved by intelligent designers rather than formed by natural processes? The mindset behind that question is little different than determining how birds came to have wings.
Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2005 01:29 AM"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Or in this case, stink to high heaven...no pun intended.
"Intelligent Design". Whoever thought THAT little catchphrase up is pretty smart. It's simply another way of trying to sneak creationism into public schools.
I agree with Kathy. Ya want your kids to learn about creationism? Send 'em to parochial schools or church.
Posted by: Pammy at September 28, 2005 09:12 AMDoug, ID is hardly a "dangerous thought." Again, if parents want their kids to learn it, that's fine with me. I have no problems with it. However---to reiterate this point one more frickin' time---this is NOT something that should be taught in public schools. It just shouldn't be. Even if it's non-denominational, it's a theory that is based in religious concepts. The law says no religion in public schools. Hence ID shouldn't be taught in schools. QED.
Lest you had any doubt about it, I, personally, believe the law is correct on this point.
Posted by: Kathy at September 28, 2005 09:30 AMKathy,
In archaeology artifacts are frequently tested to determine whether they were created by natural forces or were created by man. When archaeologists test for this, they're not asking a religious question. They're just trying to determine the truth. That isn't any different than the questions ID scientists are asking. Religion has nothing to do with it.
I don't support the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools. But I find your reasoning, which is the same reasoning I see most other places, fundamentally flawed because it labels legitimate scientific inquiry "religious."
Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2005 10:38 AMKathy,
I disagree with two points of yours.
1. The establishment clause says that the Federal government shall not establish a state religion. It does not say that religion cannot be a part of government. The founding fathers WERE religious but having just escaped a government-created religion they wanted to make sure it didn't happen here. So your argument that it is illegal to have religion in a public school is flawed in my opinion(I will, however, assume it was well-intentioned).
2. If I were to concede that we can't teach any religion in school I would still have to disagree with the Islam argument. Yes, Islam has been the religion for a lot of people in history. So teaching that point is fine, but there is no need to teach the 5 tenets unless you also teach the basic tenets of Christianity when you teach the Crusades. You can't have your cake and eat it too (I know it's a bad pun but I couldn't resist).
Posted by: Dean at September 28, 2005 12:59 PMThe ID folks take that notion into physics, and chemistry, and genetics, and astronomy, etc. etc. They create repeatable experiments following the protocols of the field they're working within.
Really? Which experiments? And were they repeatable or reproducible? I'd like to know, because I'm an expert in self-assembling systems (Ph.D. in Chemistry), and I've never seen any IDers posit experiments in my field, which ought to be a prime area for people who want to hold this particular theory up to serious scrutiny. That's what we scientists do, we take our pet theories and tear them apart, looking for the holes.
One problem with Evolution as a science is that the events postulated take place over long periods of time, so that falsification can be a problem. And without falsifiability, nothing can be claimed to be science. So, for a long time Evolution skated on the edge of the science / informed speculation boundary. Evolution is gaining more areas where it moves from speculation into science. Experiments do not have to be man made. Predictions about future discoveries also count as experiments, and those can be made within the framework of Evolution. Evolution Therory has predicted observed changes in populations:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#morphological_rates
If ID had any evidence from falsifiable experiments or predictions on its side, I'd say go ahead and use it in the science curriculum. But it doesn't. Not at this time. This is a great area to teach kids what science is, but ID is not the means to that end. There is enough confusion in kids' minds about what science is (and it ain't memorizing facts), that wasting time in science class on something that is demonstrably not science is a crime against society.
I happen to personally believe in something similar to ID, but I am intellectually honest enough to discount ID as science. On the other hand, even if one of my colleagues were able to set up a self-assembling system that begins to exhibit the charactersitics of living organisms, this would shed no definitive light on what happened at the event or events that led to life on Earth. (It would provide some pretty good circumstantial evidence for a purely mechanistic worldview, but not definitve proof). Neither ID nor Evolution can posit a means to set up a reproducible experiment to definitively show what went on at the moment of life's creation. Therefore, with regards to the "why are we here" question, neither theory is science. For now, science can't even ask that question. Science looks at the mechanics of things, not the ultimate whys. A lot of scientists go overboard and postulate an atheistic world view that is also not science, but that does not then make ID science.
I'm not sure the Establishment Clause prevents a teacher from saying "this is what some people believe, take it or leave it", just as they teach the 5 tenets of Islam in History class. So teach ID in Social Studies, but leave it out of science class.
Posted by: John at September 28, 2005 02:59 PMThe thing I love about about the IDers is that they always drag out "but Evolution is just a theory." All of science is just theories. Science gave up claims to knowing "ultimate truth of reality" back when Einstein put the knife the aether.
Even the "laws" - like electromagnetic attraction - are viewed to be just approximations of what is really going on good only over certain distances. (Electron-weak force models break down at sub-nuclear distances where the strong nuclear force takes over, etc.) And anytime science grabs something and says "it must be true - no matter the experimental results" we get bad science. The aether in the 1800s or dark matter today. (Please note there is no evidence for dark matter, in exactly the same way as there was no evidence for the aether. Both were introduced to make the researchers favorite equations hold true in the light of conflicting experiemental data or observations.)
No piece of science today will lay claim to the ultimate truth. Even if we get to a Unified Field Theorem describing all of physical reality, the most any scientist will claim is that the theorem will accurately model the experimental results for the known experiments... But then there will be people trying to do new experiements to either confirm or refute the existing model. (Actually that's true today, and has been true anytime since Einstein.)
And actually at the level of "what is science?" Science is attempt to explain the world WITHOUT reference to a supernatural being or force. ID violates the very reason science exists.
Discussions of ultimate truth belong in a religion class, not a science class.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at September 28, 2005 05:07 PMOn this, one of the office libs and I are in complete agreement with you: if you want your kids to get religion in K-12, send them to parochial schools. (Hers went to the local yeshiva and mine will go to a school named after a pope and a saint.)
Posted by: LMC at September 28, 2005 08:35 PMAll hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Seriously, Doug...
In archaeology artifacts are frequently tested to determine whether they were created by natural forces or were created by man. When archaeologists test for this, they're not asking a religious question. They're just trying to determine the truth. That isn't any different than the questions ID scientists are asking. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Anyone who says differently, is selling something.Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at September 28, 2005 10:16 PM
John,
Really? Which experiments? And were they repeatable or reproducible? I'd like to know, because I'm an expert in self-assembling systems (Ph.D. in Chemistry), and I've never seen any IDers posit experiments in my field
Damn, this is getting old. If I do your research to keep up on your field of expertise, will you at least mow my yard in compensation? (Freakin' lazy-ass Phd's who want to impress with paper credentials instead of the quality of their intellect...)
No BS ... I really could point you to the people doing this research. But why should I? My point isn't that they're right. As I have stated on my own blog, they haven't even persuaded me. I object to people who don't even know about the actual research telling other people that it's not scientific. Because every single such charge I have seen has failed under close scrutiny - yours included.
Your comments make clear you don't even know the substance of the hypotheses and experiments behind ID. You're proceding on hearsay, and doing so with unquestioning confidence. Jebus. Psychology can exlain that much better than your chemistry PhD.
As for other issues you raised, if you want more about my view on this topic, start here.
Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2005 11:13 PMThe ID proponent in the classroom is professing a faith; not making a scientific argument.
True often enough. But this says nothing about the content of the ID research itself. If you dig in just a smidgen you will find a significant disconnect between "ID proponents in the classroom" and the actual researchers.
Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2005 11:20 PMDoug, the bulk of the "research" I can find on ID is delivered by this nutjob.
Forget the bulk of Hovind's 'facts', few people with the ability to think for themselves get past the point wherein Dr. Dino tries to convince people that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. That is obviously bunk, and vast, compelling, independently verified research from a host of unrelated disciplines confirms this fact.
If there is research beyond Dr. Dino's out there that actually addresses ID within a scientific framework, please point me to it.
There is a concise, reasoned refutation of creationist theory here (generously reposted from Scientific American) and an enlightening discussion of Hovind's so-called $250,000 challenge for evidence of evolution here.
Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at September 28, 2005 11:43 PMBy the way, no one here is saying that God didn't have anything to do with the creation of the universe, Earth, dinosaurs or the fungus in the drain. What we're saying is that to consider ID demands faith in a specific religious context as a pre-requisite. And that has no place in public education.
Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at September 28, 2005 11:47 PMDoug, the bulk of the "research" I can find on ID is delivered by...
Jebus MRN, there comes a point where it's okay to admit you need help. Hovind isn't a real scientist. Do you really think that's all there is behind ID? Do you know how to conduct your own legitimate inquiry into this topic, or is this a cry for help?
I'm not trying to make you guys look bad in the course of this post, but to be honest, you're not helping me so far.
Posted by: Doug at September 29, 2005 12:32 AMResort to ad hominem attacks is the first defense of the anti-scientific, Doug. Doesn’t mean your arguments are invalid, but it certainly reduces their likelihood of objective truth, if past experience is any guide.
However, my question stands. I do read the literature pretty thoroughly – if anyone wants to publish in any field, they’ve got to – editors don’t let you re-hash old experiments or ideas in cutting edge journals. And in industry, we’re paid to make stuff you can patent – not stuff someone else has patented or published and made prior-art. There’s a huge incentive to read the literature for every research scientist. So don’t ever come out in an argument with a scientist claiming that they don’t read the literature. We do. Religiously.
I have never, never come across a publication in this field by any of the prominent ID proponents (most of whom, if not all of whom, are second or third rate scientists in their proper fields), nor have I ever seen them address this question adequately. By addressing the question, I mean: take the proper scientific attitude and admit: “this is what I believe, but this whole synthetic self-assembling area could blow some big holes in the irreducible complexity argument I’ve been using”. So the question I put to you is not an idle one: which experiments in self-assembling systems have been postulated by ID? I have not seen any experiments proposed in cosmology either (one of my hobbies). So I have some serious doubts about your claim that experiments have been postulated by IDers in other disciplines as well. But I’m not an expert there, so I’ll let other experts challenge you for biochemistry et al. That’s the difference between real scientists and pretentious blowhard “generalists” with or without scientific credentials. If you were a scientist, you’d know that extraordinary claims such as: “They create repeatable experiments following the protocols of the field they're working within.” require extraordinary proof on your part, not a retort of “I’m not going to do your research for you.” MRN actually did ask for help – “If there is research beyond Dr. Dino's out there that actually addresses ID within a scientific framework, please point me to it.” You dismiss him with more ad hominems. Why? We ask because we have not seen any serious work. I am a serious expert asking a serious question: where is this literature in my field, and what will those experiments prove?
I ask this, and do not dismiss you out of hand, because I do believe that there is publication bias in science. In the area of global warming, a lot of contrary evidence and analysis has a hard time getting published because of political orthodoxy. But I do not see that with ID because of the extremely, extremely poor level of scholarship, research and analysis techniques in the ID camps. There’s just nothing there to suppress: it suppresses itself. Perhaps the scientific orthodoxy might try to suppress a good ID experiment, and I’ll be there, ready to defend the IDer in that case. I have no doubt the ID camp will raise a hue and cry if that ever happens. But I’m not holding my breath.
Here’s a good example of that poor scholarship in the area I’m most familiar with, irreducible complexity:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
Your behavior here is pretty typical of IDers in general. MRN seems to be, and I am, sympathetic to the concept of ID. You seem to admit that it is not yet science on your blog. I agree. However, when MRN and I express some pretty healthy skepticism about the scientific credentials, methods, and publications of ID, you attack your natural allies, or at least people who might be neutral in the fray.
John,
Fair enough to note my snitty behavior. It was late and this is not the first time I've had similar frustrating exchanges. You caught some pent-up attitude you didn't merit from your comment. But a few things you ought to note:
A. I'm not an "IDer." When all is said and done, I don't believe they're right. Until I am convinced otherwise, I'm of the Gould/Eldridge Punk-Eek school of thought on evolution, and unqualified to comment on the detailed research into other fields. My concern is with people who don't actually know the research in question a priori concluding it's not real science and attemting to stifle their voices by channeling Spencer Tracy in Inherit the Wind (great movie by the way).
B. It truly is odd to me that you haven't looked into some of this research yourself yet seem to have very strong opinions about its merit. I have no idea if there are adequate answers to your specific questions, but if you'd like the e-mail addresses of people far more qualified to point you to the best resources available (and possibly engage in detailed dialogue about it) drop me a line. I'll behave myself, I promise.
C. Please stop sending me links to Talkorigins. To the best of your knowledge that's state of the art ID. I get it. No need to keep saying so. You might think that is a source held in high regard by the ID researchers I'm talking about, but you'd be wrong. I don't even know anyone who reads the site, let alone takes it seriously. In my own past I once had to deal with students who insisted evolution proved there wasn't a God. They were wildly wrong, and easy to mock, but they hardly established anything about evolution being in error.
Posted by: Doug at September 29, 2005 09:02 PM